Narodniks and Liquidators in the Trade Union Movement

(A Valuable Admission)

Published:Put PravdyNo. 30, March 7, 1914.

      Published according to the text inPut Pravdy.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1972,

      Moscow,Volume 20,

      pages138-141.Translated:Bernard Isaacs and The Late Joe FinebergTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.

Inrecent issues of the Left-Narodnik newspaper, we find,
side by side with complaints about our (the Pravdists’) “factionalism”,
valuable admissions by several Narodniks about their views on important
issue of the trade union movement coinciding with those of the
liquidators. We have always said it, but it is pleasant indeed to hear this
confession from our opponents’ lips.

“Onthis question we differ sharply from the Bolsheviks, who regard
the union, as their special preserve [!]... The Mensheviks’ view [for some
reason the Narodniks say “Mensheviks” instead of “liquidators”] of the
union as an extra-factional organisation is identical with ours [the
Narodniks’]. This, perhaps, accounts for our good relations with the
Mensheviks in past activities.” This was written inVernaya MyslNo. 6.

“Theline of conduct taken by the executives of those unions in which
the Left Narodniks have been in control all the time in no way differs from
the, line of conduct of the so-called liquidationist unions,” the same
Left-Narodnik newspaper added.

Anextraordinarily frank and valuable admission! On their own showing,
it appears that our “frightfully Left” Narodniks behave in the trade
union movement exactly like the liquidators.

Hence,the blocs (alliances, agreements) between the liquidators and
the Narodniks against the Marxists, which have been repeated]y mentioned in
our press.

TheNarodnikStoikaya
Mysl[2]even frankly defends these blocs between the Left Narodniks
and the liquidators against the Marxists.

“Duringthe present period of Pravdist preponderance in the trade
union organisations ... there is nothing terrible or strange in temporary
agreements between the Narodniks and the Luchists,” writesStoikaya
MyslNo. 2.[1]

Theliquidators are not so candid. They know that “such things” are
done, but not spoken of. To call oneself a Social-Democrat while at the
same time allying with an alien party against the Social-Democrats is
“tactics” that can be pursued only underhandedly

Butthis does not change anything. The alliance between the liquidators
and the Narodniks in the trade union movement (and in the educational
societies) is afact. And in the present state of affairs it is
inevitable. The liquidators and the Narodniks are united by their common
hostility towards consistent Marxism, in all spheres of activity. In trade
union activity they are united in both being representatives of the
“neutralism ofweakness”, “willy-nillyneutralism”. Neither the liquidators nor the Narodniks have any real
influence in the trade union movement. Although a feeble minority, they
demand “equality” with the Marxists. This demand is “theoretically”
defensible only from the neutralist point of view. Hence the “neutralism”
of all groups with little influence in the working-class movement.

TheNarodniks say that they are uniting with the liquidators
“solely for the purpose of protecting the non-factionalism of the
workers’ organisations against the extravagant claims of the
Pravdists” (Stoikaya MyslNos. 2 and 4).

Whatare these “claims” of the Pravdists? Have they shut the door of
any union or society to workers who hold political views different from
their own? Have they stuck any “label” on any of the unions? Have they
split any organisation? They have done nothing of the kind! Our opponents
have not quoted a singlefactof this kind, nor can they doso. By the “extravagant claims” of the Pravdists they mean that the
Pravdists do not want to associate themselves with the petty-bourgeois
policy of the Narodniks and liquidators, and, while loyally submitting to
the majority of the workerswithin a single union, they fight for
influence for their Marxist ideas.

Wehave never been guilty of the sins ascribed to us. It is the
Narodniks and the liquidators who are guilty of them. Here are the
facts. Several years ago the Narodniks obtained a majority in the
Railwaymen’s Union. This happened because they had the backing, not of the
workers, but of the railway clerks, and because of other fortuitous
circumstances. What did the Narodniks do? They immediately “stuck a
label” on that union, compelled it to adopt its own special “platform”,
ousted the Social-Democrats and non-Party workers, and compelled them to
form a parallel union of their own.

Nowthat was a really “extravagant claim”. They hastened to make good
their first chance victory by affixing a label. The fact that the Narodniks
do not do this in other unions is not because they are so virtuous, but
because their influence everywhere among the workers isvery
slight.

Thesame thing applies to the liquidators. When they controlled the
Metalworkers’ Union they turned it into a branch of the liquidators’
organisation. The organ of the union published provocative articles against
the “underground” (seeNash PutNo. 20, p. 2,MetallistNo. 3,
etc.[3]), although no general meeting of the members ever expressed
approval of the liquidator line.

Suchare the actual facts. By the “extravagant claims” of the
Pravdists they mean that the Pravdists try to get the workers to settle
their affairs themselves by a majority vote. If at a general meeting of
metalworkers 3,000 vote for the Pravdists and a hundred or two vote for the
liquidators and the Narodniks combined, then, in the name of so-called
“non-factionalism” we are supposed to admit that 3,000 is equal to 200!
This is what liquidator-Narodnik “non-factionalism” means.

Wedo not defend neutralism; we are opposed to it. But we do not behave
like the Narodniks and liquidators when they obtain a chance majority in
some union. Only feeblegroups with no principles lose their heads at the first “victory” and
hasten to “consolidate” their victory by a majority of a score or so of
votes. Excited and in a hurry not to miss such a golden opportunity, they
hastily revise their “principles”, forget their neutralism, and stick on
a label. Marxists do not behave like that. They are not stray visitors in
the working-class movement. They know that sooner or later all the unions
will take their stand on the basis of Marxism. They are convinced that the
future belongs to their ideas and, therefore, they do not force events, do
not goad the unions on, and do not stick labels on them or split them.

Steadilyand confidently they carry on their Marxist propaganda. They
patiently teach Marxism to the workers, drawing on the lessons of life, and
no deals between unprincipled groups will divert them from that path.

Therewas a time when the present-day liquidators demanded that the
trade unions should be Party unions and have official representation in the
Party. There was a time when the Narodniks compelled the Railwaymen’s Union
to officially swear allegiance to their programme. Today both have swung to
the opposite extreme, and stand for neutralism. They have been compelled to
do this by the political weakness of their positions.

Weare following our old road, proclaimed long ago and upheld by the
entire body of Marxists. The liquidators have a full right to enter into an
alliance with the Narodniks. But it is an alliance based on abandonment of
principles and on weakness. The road which the liquidator-Narodnik bloc
proposes to the unions is not the road of the advanced workers.

[1]Mr.Boris Voronov, the author of the article, his eyes big with
surprise, quotes as an example of incredible “factionalism” the fact that
at the meetings of the executive of one of the unions “they discussed the
question of assisting the Pravdist press, and technical editorial questions
(how to improve the correspondence, department, etc.)”. Oh, horror! What a
crime it is to assist a newspaper, which unites nine-tenths of the advanced
workers, with correspondence and the like! How, after this, can the
Narodniks help throwing themselves into the arms of the liquidators?...
—Lenin

[2]SeeNote 39.

[3]Metallist—weekly organ of the Metalworkers’ Trade Union,
published in St. Petersburg from September 26 (October 9), 1911 to June 12
(25), 1914. Forty-five issues were put out. Till 1913 the Union’s Executive
and the Editorial Board were controlled by the liquidators, but after the
re-election of the Union’s Executive in May 1913 control of the Union and
the journal passed over to the Bolsheviks. Issues No. 7(31), No. 8(32) and
No. 10(34) for 1913 published the article by Lenin “Metalworkers’ Strikes
in 1912”. M. S. Olminsky, A. Y. Badayev, and G. I. Petrovsky were
contributors to the journal.Metallistwas closely linked with the
working-class masses and played an important part in rallying them around
the Bolshevik Party. The tsarist government persecutedthe journal. Several of its issues were seized by the police; and after
issue No. 24 the journal was suspended for four months. For reasons of
censorship the journal changed its name several times toKuznets(The Smith),Nadezhda(Hope),Yedinstvo(Unity),Nash Put(Our Way), etc.

Leninis referring to the editorials in the journalsNash PutNo. 20 for August 11, 1911 andMetallistNo. 3 for October 27,
1911.